4 ms·
It's an invasion of privacy. Imagine that a post appears under your name with a date/time where you are supposed to be working. If you are paid by somebody el
by enriquto 3y ago
It's an invasion of privacy. Imagine that a post appears under your name with a date/time where you are supposed to be working. If you are paid by somebody else, this may get you into trouble, or even fired.
- davnicwil 3y agoIn fairness in such an extreme situation it seems likely there would be a conversation where you'd have the opportunity to explain. If there weren't, well, probably you're better off?
- avgcorrection 3y ago> If there weren't, well, probably you're better off? That’s for the person to do something with or not. :) Not something that moderators should intervene in indirectly.
- chongli 3y agoHow do you explain if you're not aware of the policy?
- carbotaniuman 3y agoThere is no privacy invasion here (that isn't even the right argument). If you think that HN misrepresents the data then sure that's a valid concern, but it's not a privacy invasion. But really, the HN date is when it got exposed initially.
- sfink 3y agoIt does suggest that an "(updated)" marker would not go amiss. I won't explain my justification, since I'm supposed to be working right now. ;-)
- skeaker 3y agoFortunately the moderation here isn't a faceless monolith and if you email them they would most likely be happy to cooperate with your concerns about this.
- willy_k 3y agoYou’ve definitely described an invasion of privacy, just not one perpetrated by HN.